3 ms·

In support of your scepticism I have to say there is something I'm always missing in these discussions about the alleged function of the appendix. That thing th

In support of your scepticism I have to say there is something I'm always missing in these discussions about the alleged function of the appendix. That thing that I'm missing is a straightforward description of what are the consequences of patients losing these functions after an appendectomy. Surely there is more than enough population over which to do a case-study observational analysis? So, where is it? What happens to the immunity or gut flora of people who have had their appendices removed? Anything?

lo_zamoyski 3y ago
This seems similar to asking what happens if you loose a number of parts whose loss does not produce immediately discernible detriment, or perhaps parts whose function may be approximated by something else in the event of a failure. Of course, it is a perfectly valid question to ask what the effects of losing a part are.
- TeMPOraL 3y ago
  Hence mention of a large population who lost those parts. The actual detriment may not be identifiable in a random individual, but it will show up at scale, as the noise of other confounders will average out.
- AniseAbyss 3y ago
  [dead]
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
starmftronajoll 3y ago
The article touches on this: > Studies have shown that infections with the really bad, nasty bacteria C. diff tend to be higher in people who have had their appendix removed.
- Mordisquitos 3y ago
  Thanks, I somehow missed that part. I wonder how those studies controlled for confounding factors — it could well be that a prior tendency to more Clostridium difficile infections is correlated to a tendency to get an appendix infection. To be clear, I'm not necessarily as sceptical as GP commenter. I'm just surprised that so much talk about the actual function of the appendix appears to centre around theoreticals rather than on clinical data.
- killjoywashere 3y ago
  > nasty bacteria C. diff tend to be higher in people who have had their appendix removed. Uh, because people undergoing appendectomy are, almost by definition, more likely to receive antibiotic treatment, which is a far-better documented basis for C. diff infection. This article is catastrophe.
nickpsecurity 3y ago
[flagged]
- afavour 3y ago
  > So, God designed it for a reason Or it was the result of evolution.
  - imoverclocked 3y ago
    Or maybe evolution was designed by God? I have no proof either way… I also don’t know what version of God we are all talking about. Maybe this is all just a simulation after all; God is just some teenager in their parent’s basement who has been absent for what we call billions of years and what they call, “dinner.”
  - calvinmorrison 3y ago
    The invisible hand (not gods) of the (not market)
    - posterboy 3y ago
      the invisible microbes of the appendix are shaping the reservoir effects for a reason
    - dredmorbius 3y ago
      Adam Smith uses the term "invisible hand" three times in his writings (only once in Wealth of Nations) in a manner which makes clear that it isn't a description of a mechanism but rather a remarking on the unknown nature of a complex process. Smith was immersed in an atheistic tradition (a more overt contemporary would have been Smith's close friend David Hume), and "invisible hand" immediately suggests the more theistically-themed phrase "hand of God". Smith himself was not openly athiestic, and uses religious terms and concepts elsewhere (notably in The Theory of Moral Sentiments), but does seem to at the very least be liberally-minded. His mother, with whom he lived until late in his own life, was quite religious, which may have affected his thinking and/or writing. But "invisible hand", again, should be interpreted as "by some unknown or poorly-understood mechanism", which is to say, an expression of ignorance, where it's most often interpreted or presented as a description of the mechanism, which is really inexcusable.
cco 3y ago
Though I tend to agree with your train of thought, I'm always reminded of the French man who lost 90% of his brain mass yet still had a family a job and lived a normal life by all accounts. The human body can confound expectations for sure.
- lvncelot 3y ago
  Sure, but outliers aside, I'd reckon you would see some sort of statistically relevant effent if you take, say, 1000 people, yank out 90% of the brain of half of them, and just watch them go about their day. (If the ethics committee would let you)
  - aetherson 3y ago
    You might want to invest in some creative writing for the IRB packet for that one.
- ejiblabahaba 3y ago
  He didn't lose his brain mass, it was compressed into a thin shell around his skull.[0] Moreover, his IQ was 75 - I'm not sure ending up in the bottom 5% of human intelligence as a consequence of chronic hydrocephaly is a "normal" life. [0] https://www.untrammeledmind.com/2018/02/so-his-brains-just-squished-rather-than-only-10-there-a-bonsai-brains/ https://www.untrammeledmind.com/2018/02/so-his-brains-just-s...
  - epgui 3y ago
    Not normal, but impressive nonetheless.

lo_zamoyski 3y ago

This seems similar to asking what happens if you loose a number of parts whose loss does not produce immediately discernible detriment, or perhaps parts whose function may be approximated by something else in the event of a failure. Of course, it is a perfectly valid question to ask what the effects of losing a part are.

TeMPOraL 3y ago
Hence mention of a large population who lost those parts. The actual detriment may not be identifiable in a random individual, but it will show up at scale, as the noise of other confounders will average out.
AniseAbyss 3y ago
[dead]

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

starmftronajoll 3y ago

The article touches on this: > Studies have shown that infections with the really bad, nasty bacteria C. diff tend to be higher in people who have had their appendix removed.

Mordisquitos 3y ago
Thanks, I somehow missed that part. I wonder how those studies controlled for confounding factors — it could well be that a prior tendency to more Clostridium difficile infections is correlated to a tendency to get an appendix infection. To be clear, I'm not necessarily as sceptical as GP commenter. I'm just surprised that so much talk about the actual function of the appendix appears to centre around theoreticals rather than on clinical data.
killjoywashere 3y ago
> nasty bacteria C. diff tend to be higher in people who have had their appendix removed. Uh, because people undergoing appendectomy are, almost by definition, more likely to receive antibiotic treatment, which is a far-better documented basis for C. diff infection. This article is catastrophe.

nickpsecurity 3y ago

[flagged]

afavour 3y ago
> So, God designed it for a reason Or it was the result of evolution.
- imoverclocked 3y ago
  Or maybe evolution was designed by God? I have no proof either way… I also don’t know what version of God we are all talking about. Maybe this is all just a simulation after all; God is just some teenager in their parent’s basement who has been absent for what we call billions of years and what they call, “dinner.”
- calvinmorrison 3y ago
  The invisible hand (not gods) of the (not market)
  - posterboy 3y ago
    the invisible microbes of the appendix are shaping the reservoir effects for a reason
  - dredmorbius 3y ago
    Adam Smith uses the term "invisible hand" three times in his writings (only once in Wealth of Nations) in a manner which makes clear that it isn't a description of a mechanism but rather a remarking on the unknown nature of a complex process. Smith was immersed in an atheistic tradition (a more overt contemporary would have been Smith's close friend David Hume), and "invisible hand" immediately suggests the more theistically-themed phrase "hand of God". Smith himself was not openly athiestic, and uses religious terms and concepts elsewhere (notably in The Theory of Moral Sentiments), but does seem to at the very least be liberally-minded. His mother, with whom he lived until late in his own life, was quite religious, which may have affected his thinking and/or writing. But "invisible hand", again, should be interpreted as "by some unknown or poorly-understood mechanism", which is to say, an expression of ignorance, where it's most often interpreted or presented as a description of the mechanism, which is really inexcusable.

cco 3y ago

Though I tend to agree with your train of thought, I'm always reminded of the French man who lost 90% of his brain mass yet still had a family a job and lived a normal life by all accounts. The human body can confound expectations for sure.

lvncelot 3y ago
Sure, but outliers aside, I'd reckon you would see some sort of statistically relevant effent if you take, say, 1000 people, yank out 90% of the brain of half of them, and just watch them go about their day. (If the ethics committee would let you)
- aetherson 3y ago
  You might want to invest in some creative writing for the IRB packet for that one.
ejiblabahaba 3y ago
He didn't lose his brain mass, it was compressed into a thin shell around his skull.[0] Moreover, his IQ was 75 - I'm not sure ending up in the bottom 5% of human intelligence as a consequence of chronic hydrocephaly is a "normal" life. [0] https://www.untrammeledmind.com/2018/02/so-his-brains-just-squished-rather-than-only-10-there-a-bonsai-brains/ https://www.untrammeledmind.com/2018/02/so-his-brains-just-s...
- epgui 3y ago
  Not normal, but impressive nonetheless.